CHAP. XV. We know not what impression this letter made on the queen, nor how much longer the writers of ELIZ. it were detained in prison. There is reason to suppose that some months elapsed before Whitgift could be induced to consent to their release, on a general promise of good conduct. a "This prelate," says Fuller, "reflecting on his (Cartwright's) abilities, and their ancient acquaintance in Trinity College; and remembering (as an honorable adversary) they had brandished pens one against another, and considering that both of them now were well stricken in years, and (some will say) fearing the success in so tough a conflict, on Mr. Cartwright's general promise to be quiet, procured his dismission out of the star-chamber and prison wherein he was confined." The earliest of Cartwright's biographers gives a somewhat different account. His narrative serves at least to prevent our entertaining any very exalted notion of the arch civil supremacy of the crown. r Though released from confinement, Cartwright was bound to appear in the high commission court within twenty days of his being summoned. We learn this from his bitter antagonist, dean Sutcliffe, who says, "It was their honors' pleasure to show him great favor, and to accept of a certain submission he made, as I have heard; but that he should be quite discharged I cannot believe. For Mr. Cartwright may remember that he standeth bound to appear at any time within twenty days' warning given to him, which argueth that albeit he be dismissed upon hope of amendment, yet he is not discharged.” -The Examination of Mr. Cartwright's Apologie, p. 44. Church Hist., ix. 204. XV. bishop's generosity. "Yet was he," says Clarke, CHAP. "with diverse other of the non-conformists, brought into the high commission court, where, for refusal ELIZ. of the oath ex officio, they were clapt up in prison, and afterwards proceeded against in the starchamber; but it pleased God so to order it by his providence, that those very witnesses which were brought to accuse them, did so clear them, that they were dismissed, and sent home much more honored and beloved than they were before." Cartwright returned to his hospital at Warwick; but many of his brethren were deprived of their benefices, and some remained in prison. The stand which they made for the liberty of the subject, should endear their names to posterity, and may well protect them from the malignant and ferocious assaults to which their character has been subjected from party writers. writers. It partakes as little of justice as of generosity, to trace with a microscopic eye the imperfections of men, to whose patriotic exertions England is so deeply indebted.* nion, might induce his grace to Some of the puritan ministers Fuller, ix. 206. Strype's Whitgift, ii. 91. App., B. iv., Numb. 9 & 10. CHAPTER XVI. CHAP. Case of Mr. Case of Mr. Cawdrey-Puritans not implicated with Hacket-Parliament of 1593-Act against the Brownists-Execution of Brownists - -Thacker and Coping-Barrow and Greenwood-Penry-Imprisonment of Brownists—Their Petition to the Council-To Lord Burleigh-Execution of Brownists stayed―Their Banishment-Principles of the Sect. THE rigorous proceedings of the commissioners naturally drew attention to the constitution of their ELIZ. court, and led men to inquire into the legality of the powers which they exercised. Mr. Cawdrey, the minister of South Luffingham, in Rutlandshire, having been deprived of his living, and degraded from the ministry, by the commissioners, proceeded in the court of Exchequer against the chaplain of the bishop of Peterborough, who had been put in possession of his benefice. Dr. Aubrey, a civilian, and one of the commissioners, acknowledged that their proceedings were not warranted by the letter of the statute of supremacy, but maintained that they were justified by the old canon law, which he argued was still in force. The judges, however, before whom Mr. Cawdrey's case was argued, in XVI. Hilary term, 1591, confirmed the sentence of the CHAP. high commission court, and left him, with his numerous family, dependant on the care of Providence, and the charity of his friends. Though Mr. Cawdrey failed to obtain the redress which he sought; his bold resistance of ecclesiastical tyranny was not without effect. The archbishop dreaded its imitation, and fearing that the honor of his court might ultimately suffer, he henceforth prudently proceeded against most of his prisoners in the starchamber." The puritans not conspiracy. The affairs of the puritans were much prejudiced by the seditious and fanatical proceedings of in Hacker's Hacket, and his two prophets, Arthington and Coppinger. These men were enthusiasts of the worst class; the first assuming to be Jesus Christ, and the others to be two prophets, sent of God to assist him in his undertaking. Arthington and Coppinger, at the cross. in Cheapside, proclaimed Hacket king of Europe, and affirmed that the queen had forfeited her crown, and deserved to be deposed. They were speedily arrested, and on the 26th of July, 1591, Hacket was tried on two indictments, to the first of which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to die, and his conduct at the place of execution concurs with his previous deportment in establishing the fact of his insanity.' Coppinger Strype's Aylmer, chap. viii. Heylin's Hist. of the Presbyterians, page 316. Neal, i. 420. Strype and Neal represent Cawdrey as refusing the oath which the commissioners tendered to him; but Mr. Brook affirms that he afterwards complied. Lives of Puritans, i. 430. One object of Dr. Cosins' publication was to disprove the fact of Hacket's madness, this XVI. CHAP. starved himself to death in Bridewell, and Arthington is reported to have been pardoned by the ELIZ. council. As these men had been in correspondence with some of the puritan ministers, the enemies of the latter took occasion to represent them as acquainted with their plots. Dr. Cosins, dean of the Arches, and Official Principal to archbishop Whitgift, published a treatise, the professed design of which was to warn the people of the evils of heresy and schism, but which was really intended to involve the leading puritans in the odium and guilt of Hacket's conspiracy. Cartwright wrote in defence of himself and his brethren, and their innocence was practically admitted by the fact, that no legal measures were taken against them. "True it is," says Fuller, one of the most honest and candid of our historians, "they as cordially detested his blasphemies as any of the episcopal party; and such of them as loved Hacket the nonconformist, abhorred Hacket the heretic, after he had mounted to so high a pitch of impiety. But (besides the glutenous nature of all aspersions, to stick but one inference can be Being condemned, he was laid the true Jehovah whom thou hast sent; show some miracle out of the cloud to convert these infidels, and take me from mine enemies. But if not, I will set the heavens on fire, and pluck thee out of thy throne with these hands; and other speeches he used more unspeakable. Turning him to the hangman, as he was putting the rope to him, "Thou bastard (said he), wilt thou then hang Hacket, thy king?' Having the rope about his neck, he lift up his eyes to heaven, and grinning, said, 'Dost thou repay me this for a kingdom bestowed? I come to revenge it.'"-Annals, 1591, p. 30. |